1815681 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Nigerian national, sought review of a decision affirming the refusal to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he was forced to flee Nigeria due to threats and violence stemming from his opposition to corruption within a powerful union. He alleged that his close friend and brother-in-law was murdered by a union boss, Mr. B, for refusing to comply with a corrupt deal. The applicant further claimed he was subsequently targeted, with his security guard being killed during an attempted break-in at his residence, and that he could not relocate within Nigeria due to the extensive influence of Mr. B.

The legal issues before the court concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. This included determining if the applicant's fear of harm from Mr. B constituted persecution for one of these reasons, and if he could access effective protection in Nigeria. The court also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires a substantial ground for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The court affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. It found that the applicant's claims lacked sufficient credibility and substantiation. Specifically, the court noted inconsistencies in the applicant's timeline and the vagueness of his evidence regarding the threats and the events surrounding his friend's murder. While acknowledging the applicant's stated fear of Mr. B and the alleged corruption, the court concluded that the evidence did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, nor did it demonstrate a real risk of significant harm that Australia would have protection obligations. The court also considered the possibility of internal relocation within Nigeria, finding that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that such relocation would not be reasonable.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.